Speaker 1: I don't know what else there is, Like, what else
Speaker 1: can we do and say? If you don't understand at
Speaker 1: this point that papism is a giant criminal enterprise, then
Speaker 1: I don't have anything else to talk to you about. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't even want you around here. You can go elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I don't need your friendship, I don't need your interactions.
Speaker 1: I don't care about your channels. I don't care about
Speaker 1: the clicks. Now, I'm going to have open forums, and
Speaker 1: there's always the opportunity of Catholics want to call in,
Speaker 1: But there are no more public Roman Catholics been worth
Speaker 1: debating anymore. I mean I drank a lot as a
Speaker 1: trade cat because deep down this shit was insane. I
Speaker 1: don't know how do I make this work. I might
Speaker 1: as well get drunk. I don't know. So I don't know, man.
Speaker 1: The documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position,
Speaker 1: and they were intentionally written in such a way that
Speaker 1: they would be that they could be weaponized later. A
Speaker 1: lots of the Council fathers that were rhono Wites admitted this,
Speaker 1: things like you know, what's our relationship to be with
Speaker 1: the Muslims. Jay made reference to this earlier, what's our
Speaker 1: relationship to be with the Hindus, And it sounded more liberal. Really,
Speaker 1: what they were doing was quoting things from Pope Pius
Speaker 1: the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting even
Speaker 1: from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking, the
Speaker 1: Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions.
Speaker 1: Technically they worship the One True God, but they worshiped
Speaker 1: the One True God in the false way Trads, you know,
Speaker 1: rad Trad's Orthodox. Everyone gets worked up about this, but
Speaker 1: it turns out that this is a very very old
Speaker 1: medieval term that the Church is not the same for Hinduism,
Speaker 1: because the Vatican too says the same as they they believe.
Speaker 1: They not about Hindus, Hindus, not Moslims Hindus. Okay, read
Speaker 1: what it says about hindu loss. In Hinduism, people explore
Speaker 1: the divine mystery and they explore it and express it.
Speaker 1: How do you explore the true mystery of God? You
Speaker 1: can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity. It's absolutely
Speaker 1: don't explore Christianity and Hinduism. They seek release from the
Speaker 1: trials of present life through ascetic practices and meditation and
Speaker 1: recourse to God in confidence. I agree, all that's bad,
Speaker 1: but you miss so it's bad my uncle remus. Wait wait,
Speaker 1: my uncle Remis believes dogs like your uncle can fly.
Speaker 1: Oh this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to
Speaker 1: provide clarity, right, need they need to be interpreted by you?
Speaker 1: Be those are ambiguous?
Speaker 2: No? No?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu said
Speaker 1: it was bad? Wait was it clear or bad? You
Speaker 1: finished jail? I'll go after you're done. They have recourse
Speaker 1: to God. Gods will do the same thing. So just again,
Speaker 1: was that we have said of a collection irrelevant? So
Speaker 1: that's a direct object. That's a genetic facis genetic fallacy
Speaker 1: to say that because it is. You just said, I
Speaker 1: don't know, so appealed authority, appealed authority, genetic fallacy, other fallacy.
Speaker 1: They believe you're king of fallacy. The record, we say,
Speaker 1: they believe you're lying. You added that explode? Where does
Speaker 1: it say they do that? Read the sentence. It says
Speaker 1: that they seek release, and they have recourse to God
Speaker 1: and confidence, and the seek they have recourse, No, and
Speaker 1: have recourse, They seek and have recourse, okay, and what
Speaker 1: he's going to say and recourse finish up and recourse
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Recourse they have They seek in
Speaker 1: the canefidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done.
Speaker 1: So what in thematican two documents that I was very honest.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's a genetic fallacy. Can I see
Speaker 1: the book? Yeah? Yeah, read the sentence paragraph right here.
Speaker 1: Let me read it again for you. In the relations
Speaker 1: is going to keep it. In the religion of Hinduism,
Speaker 1: people explore the divine mystery, explore thank you. I just
Speaker 1: said that. It doesn't mean they found repeat each word
Speaker 1: after I say each what have you said ascertained? If
Speaker 1: they said ascertained, we'd have a hard time. So he
Speaker 1: doesn't want me to read the whole quote because he
Speaker 1: knows the later part is the difference beeen Hindu God.
Speaker 1: It is very real. They have recourse to God in
Speaker 1: confidence and love. They start the sentence over they seek.
Speaker 1: Jay thinks that the sentence said that Hindus have ascertained,
Speaker 1: haven't ascertained? It says that through exploring it. But you
Speaker 1: said it was a bad statement earlier. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: I said, no, it's not that's from read the document.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that it's very easy to misinterpret if I say, mine,
Speaker 1: my dear old uncle remus, why do he can fly?
Speaker 1: Do we need you to interpret the document? You're saying,
Speaker 1: why do we need you to interpret the you to
Speaker 1: interpret the dog? The logic professor keeps making fallacies. Ask
Speaker 1: me what Let me read what I thought it? Why
Speaker 1: do you need to interpret them? Let me read it.
Speaker 4: There's a paragraph before that one I want to read.
Speaker 4: I just want to read the full paragraph. Or actually
Speaker 4: this is part of the full paragraph.
Speaker 1: It says.
Speaker 4: Throughout history to the present day, there is found among
Speaker 4: different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which
Speaker 4: lies behind the course of nature and the events of
Speaker 4: human life. At times, there is present even a recognition
Speaker 4: of a supreme being, or still more of a father.
Speaker 4: This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
Speaker 4: that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions
Speaker 4: which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way
Speaker 4: of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions. Thus,
Speaker 4: in Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it
Speaker 4: both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately
Speaker 4: defined insights of philosophy.
Speaker 5: They seek release from.
Speaker 4: The trials of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation,
Speaker 4: and recourse to God in confidence and love.
Speaker 5: Buddhism in its various forms.
Speaker 4: Testing costs to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.
Speaker 4: It proposes a way of life by which people can,
Speaker 4: with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation
Speaker 4: and reach supreme elimination, either through their own efforts or
Speaker 4: with divine help. So to other religions which are found
Speaker 4: throughout the world, attempt in different ways to overcome the
Speaker 4: restlessness of people's hearts by outlining a program of life
Speaker 4: covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rights.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in Hindu.
Speaker 4: And real quick, I do want to read this little bit.
Speaker 4: I didn't want to read the one paraphy. There's a
Speaker 4: little bit more that I think is interesting.
Speaker 1: You already said it's bad. It goes one like me again,
Speaker 1: another fallacy, hominem so fallacy.
Speaker 5: It actually says here we have a mute. But immediately follow.
Speaker 1: Because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic, professor.
Speaker 1: I just want to point out that by and back.
Speaker 4: Okay, sorry, sorry, But immediately following this parent WHI says,
Speaker 4: the Catholic Church reject nothing of what is true and
Speaker 4: wholly in these religions. There it is as a high
Speaker 4: regard for the manner of life and conduct conduct the
Speaker 4: precepts and doctrines, which, although differing in many ways from
Speaker 4: its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect array of that truth
Speaker 4: which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims it
Speaker 4: is in duty bound to proclaim without fail Christ, who
Speaker 4: is the way the truth in life. In Him, in
Speaker 4: whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the
Speaker 4: fullness of their religious life.
Speaker 1: Thank you, I was all that shows contradiction. No, that
Speaker 1: doesn't help you.
Speaker 5: I actually agree with with the Catholic view.
Speaker 4: It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying
Speaker 4: Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a key hole and
Speaker 4: seeing these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly. And
Speaker 4: if they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find
Speaker 4: the way.
Speaker 1: The problem is the even non liberals at the council.
Speaker 1: Problem is that only written by D fourteen, Jesus says
Speaker 1: that he's the only way right, the truth in the life.
Speaker 1: It's that. But I understand that the problem is that
Speaker 1: you can It says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism,
Speaker 1: men find love in God and they find they seek love. No,
Speaker 1: it says they find it. They believe they unphrase says
Speaker 1: seek it. Then it says they find it. Just like
Speaker 1: I said, Read it again, just like it says Muslims
Speaker 1: adore the one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because
Speaker 1: they're not religion, No, they're not. Do they believe religion?
Speaker 1: You believe? Do they believe in one God or multiple?
Speaker 1: They believe in Monos? Says the Monos the Bible teach.
Speaker 1: Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Or Monotheism the Trinity?
Speaker 1: So the Muslims don't believe in the God of the body.
Speaker 1: You know that? Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy? That? Okay?
Speaker 5: I have a question.
Speaker 1: So if you understand what sense reference dichotomy, does Jesus okay,
Speaker 1: we can be referring to the same thing. Does Jesus
Speaker 1: you describe it as yellow? I just and we're still
Speaker 1: restarting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding this reference. Does
Speaker 1: Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father? No,
Speaker 1: of course not so then then that that undoes your argument,
Speaker 1: undoes your Muslim lane because you said you understand the
Speaker 1: sense reference dichotomy. Explain how by sense risk affirmative and
Speaker 1: by reference it would be a negative answer. We can
Speaker 1: be referring to the same thing. If you think Cleveland
Speaker 1: doesn't that and I think they disprove your sense reference argument,
Speaker 1: and we're not that you want to disprove your sense
Speaker 1: with stance of the question, I can disprove it by
Speaker 1: Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe in Jesus? No, Mormons
Speaker 1: don't believe. Do they use the term Jesus? No, they
Speaker 1: not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use the term wait wait, wait,
Speaker 1: nor believe Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy
Speaker 1: that hasn't been interrupting. So Mormons believe that there is
Speaker 1: a historical Jesus. He believes that he that that Mormons
Speaker 1: Jesus is not the son of gods. I know what
Speaker 1: they believe co religion. So just like Muslims, if they
Speaker 1: say I believe in the one God. It's the quantifier
Speaker 1: shift fallacy. No, that's just the quantity that's true. But
Speaker 1: that's what the document is reference to the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 1: Then that undoes what what does that mean? What does
Speaker 1: that mean? So it's like if I say I have
Speaker 1: one mother, you have one mother. We all have one mother.
Speaker 1: Therefore we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying
Speaker 1: shift fallacy. So one God, well, we all believe in
Speaker 1: one God. Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is
Speaker 1: using the quantifier shift fallacy. And read the line. Read
Speaker 1: the line that you think is false definitively, because there
Speaker 1: are no definitive statements you've read that are fault. Notice
Speaker 1: that seeking searching, exploring, why do we need.
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 1: Was just retarded. Just retard.
Speaker 5: The quartiis shift fallaws is retarded, I think.
Speaker 1: Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you
Speaker 1: just read it is retarded. Okay, let me, let me.
Speaker 1: Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written
Speaker 1: by liberals, but it's supposed to clarify. So the paper
Speaker 1: does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals,
Speaker 1: and we need tim to interpret it for you don't
Speaker 1: need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack
Speaker 1: that you're making. That's that's common miscar one true God,
Speaker 1: living and subsisting in himself. Yeah, sift fallas set with
Speaker 1: two bargaining dogs. Every time Muslims claim how about this,
Speaker 1: Muslims claim to believe in one. It doesn't say it
Speaker 1: says they adore. It doesn't say they claim. Muslims the
Speaker 1: words now they adore by the sense of reference dichotomy.
Speaker 4: Okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to read this. Yea,
Speaker 4: this is important. It says the church also has a
Speaker 4: high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is
Speaker 4: one living as merciful and.
Speaker 5: I'm what I said, I'm not.
Speaker 4: Done, the creator of heaven and earth, who was also
Speaker 4: spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves without reserve,
Speaker 4: to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted
Speaker 4: himself to God's plans, and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked
Speaker 4: to their own, although not acknowledging him as God. They
Speaker 4: venerate Jesus a prophet, his virgin mother. They also honor
Speaker 4: and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the
Speaker 4: day of judgment and the reward of the reward of
Speaker 4: God following the resurrection of the dead.
Speaker 5: For this reason, they highly esteem.
Speaker 4: And upright life life and worship God, especially by way
Speaker 4: of prayer, alms, deeds, and fasting.
Speaker 1: It.
Speaker 5: It does seem like.
Speaker 4: They're saying, as far as I can tell, Muslims are
Speaker 4: worshiping the same God.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, yes, this is this is a community college
Speaker 1: primer on intro to religions and mean, how you couldn't
Speaker 1: get quantified ship it's in your Islam is literally one
Speaker 1: of the three monotheisms in Western religion. Is it trying? No,
Speaker 1: It's not the God of the Bible. According to you,
Speaker 1: I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes,
Speaker 1: you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think
Speaker 1: the Bible God is the Trinity. Then the Muslims don't
Speaker 1: worship the same God because of the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 1: The Muslims don't worship the same God. It doesn't say
Speaker 1: the same God as US book says. They do, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you. They don't worship the same God, Muslim, Are
Speaker 1: you serious? What's going on? Heresion? They worship God who
Speaker 1: is living and subsisting in the marciful Almighty Creator. No,
Speaker 1: you said the same God as Us as us, you
Speaker 1: and us. No, No, it doesn't say us. Oh so
Speaker 1: it doesn't say us. A dude, Muslims worship how many?
Speaker 1: How many gods do Muslims worship? Say Jay Dyer? How
Speaker 1: many gods do Muslims worship? Worship? How many do they worship?
Speaker 1: By the way, one or two or three? I don't
Speaker 1: believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that
Speaker 1: it's a distinction. I also don't agree. I believe it's
Speaker 1: the quantifiership fallacy. One thing. Can you tell me how
Speaker 1: I don't believe that they believe they worship One doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because the statement is that you said you understood
Speaker 1: the sense r go worship. From the orthox perspective, we
Speaker 1: reject the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotistic faiths.
Speaker 1: So even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when
Speaker 1: we look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that
Speaker 1: it is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity,
Speaker 1: but it's Yahweh, his Angel messenger and his spirit are revealed,
Speaker 1: and in John five through nine, when Jesus debates with
Speaker 1: the Pharisees, who were the monotheists, he consistently says, you
Speaker 1: don't get the right God, you don't get the right pick. Sure,
Speaker 1: Abraham worshiped me, Jesus says. In John eight, he says
Speaker 1: Moses wrote about him, meaning that Abraham and Moses had
Speaker 1: faith in Christ. This is a key point to undo
Speaker 1: the natural theology argument that the Old Testament posited a
Speaker 1: generic theism of just a one monotheistic God. If Abraham
Speaker 1: believe in the Trinity, then the whole Abrahamic religion thing
Speaker 1: falls apart, and Jesus says that to have faith in
Speaker 1: him makes you a child of Abraham. Galatians three Paul
Speaker 1: says exact same thing. So when Vatican two acknowledges that
Speaker 1: they have the faith of Abraham together with us, we
Speaker 1: believe that as a denial of Jesus teaching in John
Speaker 1: eight that you can be a child of Abraham without faith.
Speaker 1: I guess that's the art. That's fair. There are fundamentals
Speaker 1: that are absolutely essential to have access to God or
Speaker 1: to Christianity. So to deny, for example, the Trinity or
Speaker 1: the incarnation puts us one outside of the bounds of
Speaker 1: Christianity at all.
Speaker 5: I agree that, Like, look at it this way.
Speaker 4: There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if
Speaker 4: you follow the rules, you can come to the club.
Speaker 4: And half the people follow the rules and get led in.
Speaker 4: The other half says that guy's telling us to go
Speaker 4: bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They
Speaker 4: thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy,
Speaker 4: but they're doing it wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, getting we throw the we do throw people out right.
Speaker 4: My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God,
Speaker 4: it's like the bouncer.
Speaker 5: Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw
Speaker 5: bricks at the building.
Speaker 1: What are they doing? Well? The problem is not just worship,
Speaker 1: but Vatican two uses the term of adoration, which in
Speaker 1: Kalach theology is more specific than just a generic idea
Speaker 1: of natural theology. Adoration is something that's a specific term
Speaker 1: for like adoring the Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I
Speaker 1: would also point out that when my opening statement I
Speaker 1: mentioned the fact that the Council of vn, which is
Speaker 1: a medieval Romancalach theology, which was involved in the crusades.
Speaker 1: That attitude today that you see here is completely different
Speaker 1: than the attitude then in the Middle Ages, where it
Speaker 1: was the abominable sect of Muhammet. In the council they
Speaker 1: call crusades against the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.
Speaker 1: Sure attitudes change, Dogmadi, No, no, how can you be the
Speaker 1: abominable sect of Muhammed? But now, but now together with us,
Speaker 1: they adore the once your God. That's the contradiction to
Speaker 1: they could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and still
Speaker 1: worship one they don't, even though by references with us,
Speaker 1: Tim Jay can I can I ask? Are these both?
Speaker 1: These are both dogmatic councils from Vatican two? Okay, then
Speaker 1: dogma contradicts hold.
Speaker 3: On the resolution of the debate was whether Christians and
Speaker 3: Muslims worship the Saint God. If you concede that it's
Speaker 3: possible to worship the True God even without in some
Speaker 3: sense knowing him, then you've just mean I'm.
Speaker 1: Not because of the passage is that the knowledge is
Speaker 1: not getting you anywhere. Islam is predicated on rejecting the
Speaker 1: Sun and as getting anywhere, getting anywhere.
Speaker 3: Because I agree with that, who cares if they're getting
Speaker 3: anywhere in terms of.
Speaker 1: The adoration in Vatican two, suggest that there's a pipeline
Speaker 1: that does attain to the to the to the object
Speaker 1: that it's acceptable, and that's why the Pope's going pray
Speaker 1: in the mosques. That's so they're paid in the moss.
Speaker 1: That's not what. Can I share my screen to show
Speaker 1: you what I'm talking about?
Speaker 2: No, not yet, No, not yet. It's my turn. So
Speaker 2: I did the courtesy. I did the courtesy of.
Speaker 6: Giving everybody syllogisms that summarize my argument in simple logical form.
Speaker 6: It's a courtesy, and it makes it an easy target.
Speaker 6: It allows you to say, I disagree with premise one, or
Speaker 6: I disagree with premise too.
Speaker 2: We did not get that from you.
Speaker 6: We got a hodgepodge of quotes and no logic connecting
Speaker 6: them together. Your argument appears to be, and if you've
Speaker 6: got a slide, otherwise correct me. The argument appears to
Speaker 6: be if two people attribute different essential properties to it
Speaker 6: to a subject term, they cannot refer to the same
Speaker 6: insid The superman argument blows the objection.
Speaker 2: Superman argument blows it apart.
Speaker 1: It's no different of the reference is irrelevant. No, it's
Speaker 1: not if it's predicated on rejecting that thing, then it's
Speaker 1: no longer referring to the worship and adoration of that thing. Jesus,
Speaker 1: you need it? What's your What?
Speaker 6: What put it in a syllogism? You've got no logical connection.
Speaker 2: Between the Yeah, you don't have to if you did.
Speaker 1: The argument is about whether or not the worship argument.
Speaker 1: I dargue so we can evaluate logic. I came here, streamer,
Speaker 1: I came here to demonstrate the magisterial contradictions, and I've
Speaker 1: already done that. You said that God can be worshiped
Speaker 1: as a demon and as the True God at the
Speaker 1: same time, you already made nobody ever said that. Nobody.
Speaker 1: I'll give you a one thousand dollars.
Speaker 6: I'll give you one thousand dollars if you can find
Speaker 6: that on the take on thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: You said it was. You said it was both.
Speaker 2: I said an individual.
Speaker 6: I said, an individual like the Jews at times, could
Speaker 6: worship both the true God and a demon. And therefore
Speaker 6: it is not the case that ex.
Speaker 1: God. Get you anywhere.
Speaker 2: Learn it.
Speaker 1: I'm not arguing. I'm arguing your dog.
Speaker 6: You're not arguing because it's your Dogmas contradict.
Speaker 1: You can I just ask, Jake, can I just ask.
Speaker 3: What you mean by it doesn't get you anywhere?
Speaker 1: What what do you mean by that? I argue that
Speaker 1: that can choose teachings contradict previous teachings. That's my argument.
Speaker 3: No, just what do you mean by it doesn't get
Speaker 3: you anywhere?
Speaker 1: I'm just argument it doesn't There's no Salvafic acceptance of
Speaker 1: God in that in that in that relationship.
Speaker 2: That's what.
Speaker 1: The point of the My argument is that Vatican to
Speaker 1: contradicts the previous dogmas. That's my argument. That's what I
Speaker 1: came to argue.
Speaker 3: What does that argument have to do with the resolution
Speaker 3: of the debate and the tell know of the debate.
Speaker 1: Worship and adoration that is accepted by God is what
Speaker 1: I'm arguing about. So you can argue something else, but
Speaker 1: who cares about them? My point is that can I
Speaker 1: put my slide back up to make why I'm making
Speaker 1: this point? My slide The reason that this matters is
Speaker 1: that this is not an intellectual issue, Believe it or not,
Speaker 1: this is a spiritual issue. Yeah, exactly, I know that
Speaker 1: as a Tomas do you think that the problem is intellectual?
Speaker 1: But it's not, it's spiritual. So when the popes act
Speaker 1: on this Vatican two document that Muslims, Jews, and Christians
Speaker 1: all worship the same God and they pray in the
Speaker 1: synagogues and the moss towards Mecca, which according to Aquinas
Speaker 1: are actions of apostasy. That's my argument. You have an
Speaker 1: apostate papacy that you follow and that you defend. This
Speaker 1: is your spiritual tradition meant about. You got no arguments.
Speaker 1: This is the argument.
Speaker 6: Argument, argument has princes and conclusion contradict. The reference of
Speaker 6: God depends on revelation and the and the Muslims just
Speaker 6: pick it up. They borrow it and take it over
Speaker 6: from the Jesus have no natural theology whatsoever.
Speaker 1: The natural revelation in this project is the God of
Speaker 1: the Old Testament. That's why David worshiped Jesus. And I
Speaker 1: think in your last dream you said David didn't worship Jesus.
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Not by that name? Did he did? David? Did David
Speaker 2: ever mention Jesus?
Speaker 1: Did mention the name in the Book of Zachariah. It's
Speaker 1: Yesua that appears you didn't know that.
Speaker 2: And do you think he was referring to a first
Speaker 2: century Palestinian Jew, hun, do you hunt?
Speaker 1: You don't think that Jesus is the song? You didn't
Speaker 1: realize that Jesus, he doesn't know that, he doesn't know,
Speaker 1: doesn't even know that Jesus lived in first century Palace.
Speaker 1: Who is the god of the Old Testament? You didn't
Speaker 1: know that?
Speaker 2: Yes he is? Amen, brother, Amen, But a.
Speaker 1: Look at this guy, demon jes eat with Abraham.
Speaker 2: Probably so what so.
Speaker 1: You don't know what happened in Genesis? You don't know.
Speaker 2: Probably you don't know, you don't know.
Speaker 1: Just make your this is boring, You're boring, You're boring.
Speaker 1: Look at this guy.
Speaker 2: Make an argument.
Speaker 1: The argument is that I can't theogy talking over me.
Speaker 1: Look at this guy. I don't know natural theology. You
Speaker 1: like nothing that I am.
Speaker 6: Said, nothing that I have said, hinged on any natural theology.
Speaker 2: You're full of straw men, red harings.
Speaker 1: You said in your last dream, you said, in your
Speaker 1: last dream. But Dad didn't know Jesus, you said, David
Speaker 1: didn't know Jesus.
Speaker 2: Name, not as the first entry policy and you and also.
Speaker 1: So Jesus is you don't believe that he's You don't
Speaker 1: believe he's the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: What's your point make an argument?
Speaker 1: You don't believe that Jesus is the angel of the
Speaker 1: Lord in the Old Testament? Of course I did, Okay,
Speaker 1: So what so Jesus says that Abraham believed in me?
Speaker 1: Right John five?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's Jesus in the Trinity in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: You were wrong, Yes, I know, yeah, yeah, yeah. That
Speaker 1: doesn't follows. So it's not okay, what are you doing?
Speaker 6: A thousand dollars I'll give I'll give you one hundred.
Speaker 1: You can make a syllogism.
Speaker 2: If you can make a.
Speaker 1: Syllogi Trinity revealed, no argument is of course it is?
Speaker 1: So what when Islam picks up that revelation, it's no
Speaker 1: longer that God?
Speaker 2: Uh huh? Why not?
Speaker 1: What the hell are you? What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: The triad?
Speaker 2: What? This is a nonsense?
Speaker 6: You refer to to try you and God without knowing
Speaker 6: that God is trying, just as Clark Lewis linkn refer
Speaker 6: to Clark knowing he can.
Speaker 2: When Lois says.
Speaker 1: Religion is a weekly he's referring to.
Speaker 7: All right, guys, hey, let me let me jump in here.
Speaker 7: This is this is getting this is getting a little
Speaker 7: bit out of hand. Let's let's let Trent make his
Speaker 7: point about Clark Kent Superman real quick, just to let
Speaker 7: him do that, and then we'll continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what can what?
Speaker 6: What I'm saying is that you can refer to the
Speaker 6: Triune God without knowing that God is trying.
Speaker 2: That's just simple. You can have a million examples.
Speaker 1: You can you can refer to people.
Speaker 6: You can refer to people in ways as they don't
Speaker 6: know the essential properties.
Speaker 1: Let's let him.
Speaker 7: Let's let him finish his thought, and then.
Speaker 6: It's called the day Dick, It's called the day dicto
Speaker 6: de rey distinction.
Speaker 2: And you can easily. It happens all the time. You
Speaker 2: can refer to things that.
Speaker 6: Have properties that you not only don't know they have,
Speaker 6: but you can believe they don't have them.
Speaker 2: It's easy. People do it all the time.
Speaker 7: All right, now, let's let Jay come in and Trent
Speaker 7: don't interrupt. Trent, don't interrupt.
Speaker 1: So again, he had no idea about Old Testament theology,
Speaker 1: doesn't even know if Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: He denied it the other day in his stream. And
Speaker 1: then when we come to this basic question I asked
Speaker 1: him at the Old if the Trinity is in the
Speaker 1: Old Testament, he doesn't know. Maybe I guess who cares.
Speaker 1: The reason that matters is that he just argued a
Speaker 1: few minutes ago that Islam picked up this revelation in
Speaker 1: Jenner from what they heard Christians and others saying, Remember,
Speaker 1: Muhammad was unlettered, he couldn't read, so he was getting
Speaker 1: all this arly right. Islam is predicated not just on
Speaker 1: natural theology. They do have a natural theology of debts
Speaker 1: shikaz or Rashiet. On this point, it's predicated on explicit
Speaker 1: rejection of trinity. In fact, in the Qur'an, their entire
Speaker 1: chapters in sections saying you may not believe that Allah
Speaker 1: is the Father, you may not believe in Triad. So
Speaker 1: the analogies and examples that he gave fail because the
Speaker 1: religion of Islam is erected on a specific rejection of
Speaker 1: the Trinity. That's why it matters to go into the
Speaker 1: Old Testament to talk about natural theology. And the reason
Speaker 1: that Father Deacon brought up the core beliefs of natural
Speaker 1: theology is that that's Swinburne and Aquinas and everybody's ideas
Speaker 1: as to what the essential supposed attributes of God are
Speaker 1: from natural theology. When Aquinas argues this point, he argues
Speaker 1: it from natural theology. Vatican too is arguing natural theology.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you notice they don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about in the magisterial contradictions though for us Christians,
Speaker 1: who judges mankind on the last day, Allah, no Jesus,
Speaker 1: that's an explicit reference that it is not our God.
Speaker 1: It is not the same judge, it is not the same. Right,
Speaker 1: like the Jews and like the Samaritan woman, Basil says,
Speaker 1: you've lost the faith, You've lost God. You do not
Speaker 1: worship the God that we worship. Who is trinity? You know?
Speaker 1: MEA says, I reject your trinity. Basil says, you no
Speaker 1: longer have God. Saint John christilsom. Jews do not have God,
Speaker 1: they do not have the Father, they do not have
Speaker 1: the worship of God the Father. Exactly what Jesus says
Speaker 1: in John five and John eight. What is the patristic
Speaker 1: terminology here? Oh, it's exactly what we say, it isn't it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I'm going to talk about them still lying about
Speaker 1: Palamas because they haven't read Palamas. They don't know that
Speaker 1: the entire first Triad is against natural theology. And Palamas says,
Speaker 1: if Plato got one conceptual idea about God right, it
Speaker 1: really doesn't matter at all because it's all demonic and worthless.
Speaker 1: The very point that we're trying to make, getting one
Speaker 1: thing or one attribute doesn't equate to worshiping and loving
Speaker 1: the thing. All that equates to is getting one attribute, right.
Speaker 1: That's it, And we're gonna see what Jesus says about
Speaker 1: getting one attribute or a handful of attributes right. It
Speaker 1: doesn't get you anywhere. It's not salvific. Now, they said,
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem saying it's not soelvific. Oh, really,
Speaker 1: you don't have a problem saying that it's Then why
Speaker 1: does Vatican two use the terminology of salvific presence in Islam?
Speaker 1: By admitting that, you're admitting that Vatican two is a
Speaker 1: surrendering of the position. Remember Tomashevsky's opening slides. He believes
Speaker 1: that Islam is not self effict and it does not
Speaker 1: get you to God, but that the reference is the same.
Speaker 1: And the whole point of this debate again is that
Speaker 1: Vatican two's documents don't just say, okay, Muslims have a
Speaker 1: conception of God. They think they love God, they think
Speaker 1: they worship God. It says together with US Catholics, they
Speaker 1: do it, you liars, along with us Muslims adore along
Speaker 1: with US Catholics. Muslims adore the one God. Let's get
Speaker 1: a little refresher. What did the medieval popes say they
Speaker 1: worship demons? The reason this doesn't work is that it's
Speaker 1: that's a false analogy, because in the case of certain
Speaker 1: reference and intentionality, you might be able to intend the
Speaker 1: same deity. And if if if no stra Ta tra
Speaker 1: Vatican or Illuminingentium only kept it at that's what they believe,
Speaker 1: you might be able to make the text work. The
Speaker 1: problem is that that's not all that it says. It
Speaker 1: actually says that they do adore the same deity that
Speaker 1: we do. The one they do adore doesn't say they
Speaker 1: think they adore the one God. It says they do
Speaker 1: adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful
Speaker 1: and all powerful, the creator of heaven and earth. They
Speaker 1: take pains to submit to his undisputable and indiscrutable. His
Speaker 1: inscrutable decree is just as Abraham. So in sentence, let
Speaker 1: me finish in sentence two one and two of Nora
Speaker 1: Tate three, there is no qualification that what has been
Speaker 1: said so far is merely their intention or their perception.
Speaker 1: It identifies the adoration, which in Catholic theology is a
Speaker 1: term of worship with what Muslims already possess, and you
Speaker 1: just admitted at the beginning that onto logically speaking, it's
Speaker 1: not the same referent. So even if they intend it,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter because Vatican two says that they actually
Speaker 1: adore that God. You finished, Yeah, okay, great, So.
Speaker 7: I understand what it says, and I think that it
Speaker 7: could have said it better.
Speaker 5: But I also want to focus on.
Speaker 1: Why are you able to say that infallible dogmatic decrees
Speaker 1: from the Vatican could be stated better.
Speaker 4: I'm not.
Speaker 1: You just said it could be better. So are you
Speaker 1: more competent than the papacy?
Speaker 3: No, I'm not.
Speaker 1: Well, you just said it could be stated better, So
Speaker 1: in this case you are right.
Speaker 2: No, I just want to.
Speaker 1: I'm not meaning to be rude to you, Calk Primer,
Speaker 1: but this paper takes on Swinburne and other pretty pretty
Speaker 1: popular proponents of tomistic natural theology go ahead.
Speaker 5: So what that paper says, it doesn't say.
Speaker 1: Documents contradict. So when you go to another place where
Speaker 1: it says, well, do you admit that Jesus is and God?
Speaker 1: That doesn't address my argument that the docum